Motivation?

[Wickerman]

How did the killer know the victims were prostitutes?We have suspicions because of the amount of information now available.How much information did he have,especially of Stride and Eddowes,when the aquaintance appears to be of a short duration.

If they approached him, the same way as Kelly approached Hutchinson, they would give themselves away.

[harry]

How did the killer know the victims were prostitutes?We have suspicions because of the amount of information now available.How much information did he have,especially of Stride and Eddowes,when the aquaintance appears to be of a short duration.

[miakaal4]

It seems to me the killer definitely had a monkey on his back regarding the mutilations. By this I mean he had ideas of what he wanted to do before he attacked. What is really odd is in the case of the Mitre Square murder, he acts as if his work is far more important than the risk of capture. The initial kill, the facial mutilations, the organ removal, in complete darkness, in 5 minutes. At any time a policeman or worker could have stumbled into him but none the less, the unnecessary extensive mutilations were done, and colon placed precisely. This is not the work of a raving lunatic, this is someone who has planned the destruction beforehand. Seems to me that the placement of the colon could be very significant in identifying the true motivation. It is too strange to be random. Isn't it?

[Abby Normal]

imho the rippers main motivation was what his knife could do to the female body--he simply liked cutting up women.
secondary motivation was shocking the public.

no torture, no overt sexual abuse. all post mortem.

[Harry D]

It is easy to assume that the killer was just some sex maniac who killed women, "just for jolly", but if that is dropped out of the equation, we are left with the problem of motive. It seems that the killer wanted his victim in a state of helplessness and silence. So kill her. Okay now he attacks the lower abdomen, deep jagged slashes, in some cases removing parts of the womb. So again it is tempting to assume sex was behind it. But then we have the kidney removal. The mutilation of the face not the vagina. Was the motive the destruction of a woman then? If so, why be so public about it? Why not vanish into the countryside and prey on rural women? Or was it because they were prostitutes? That could point to a religious or revenge motive. Any thoughts?

The kidney is interesting because it wasn't the easiest organ to snatch. It could be that it held some religious significance to the killer (Leviticus demands kidneys as part of a sacrificial offering) or it could be that he was a cannibal who wanted to taste that particular organ (which might support From Hell's authenticity).

Why not vanish into the countryside and prey on rural women? Or was it because they were prostitutes? That could point to a religious or revenge motive.

Well, there could be any number of reasons for that. He might have been accustomed to city life and had commitments that kept him in London. I also think that targeting women in small, rural areas would've been more troublesome than picking off whores in the labyrinthine slums of Whitechapel. It was possibly the perfect backdrop to get away with these murders, even if he did have a couple of close calls.

[erobitha]

Finally a proper good Ripper question.

I have a preferred suspect which is known on these boards but let’s park that for one minute and talk about motive. Why would someone do this?

VICTIMOLOGY
All canonical five victims were prostitutes. 4 of which murdered in the open of which one actually in broad daylight (Chapman) and one in her own lodgings. It's not unreasonable to assume he was specifically targeting this class of women so he must have had a reason.

MODUS OPERANDI
It appeared he strangled or suffocated them in order to silence them in the first instance. Then to make sure they were definitely dead he slit their throats. The way he slit their throats also varied, but this was pragmatic to ensure they were dead and not simply unconscious. To kill them silently as quickly as possible was his first aim. Some victims he almost severed their heads off and in other cases it was just the arteries in the neck he severed without fully cutting all the way across the neck. Then the post mortem mutilations varied. Polly Ann Nichols was disembowelled, Annie Chapman uterus and more, Catherine Eddowes much more including the kidney and then finally Mary Jane Kelly where he just went to town and the heart was believed to be missing - but she was flayed to the bone on most of her body. Dehumanisation was the goal here. The worst victim was Kelly in her own lodgings. She was also the youngest and I believe that was relevant to the murderer.

WEAPON
It is regarded the knife used was 6 inches at least. What type of knife we do not know but almost certainly not surgical in my view. Someone with surgical knowledge would have better selection of tools to use if the aim was surgical. This was quite a brutal knife picked by the killer to do multiple jobs from slitting the throat to removing a uterus or heart. It just needed to be sharp and effective.

ORGANISED vs DISORGANISED
It is assumed that as these attacks were random and as such made him more of a disorganised killer. However, the fact the murder targets were always prostitutes, the way he subdued them, how he always killed at weekends and he was able to blend in seamlessly - suggests to me enough pattern behaviour to challenge that hypothesis. I believe he may have had some acquaintance with one or two of the victims, but that's purely my theory and is unproven.

So from the above we can garner the killer's motive is to dehumanise the prostitute working class women of Whitechapel in the most brutal way possible on weekends. The killing itself was not the aim - that was the admin. The post mortem mutilation is what he was more interested in, hence the fascination with dehumanisation. Whitechapel was "darkest London" and whilst prostitutes could be found almost anywhere, there was believed to be over a thousand in the Whitechapel district alone. A lion hunts for wilderbeast at the waters edge where there are many. Also there was some kind of proud showmanship here. It's like he was proud of his work. The way Kelly was positioned was staged and for a reason.

1) A whore did him wrong somehow and this is payback. They were fair game and they disgusted him.
2) Alternatively this could be the work of a religious maniac who saw prostitutes as the embodiment of satan himself and felt they were doing some kind of "gods work"
3) Just a crazy jew who lost the plot [for Kosminski believers]

My bet is 1 is the most likely but we can't rule out 2. I'm sure we can rule out 3.

[miakaal4]

It is easy to assume that the killer was just some sex maniac who killed women, "just for jolly", but if that is dropped out of the equation, we are left with the problem of motive. It seems that the killer wanted his victim in a state of helplessness and silence. So kill her. Okay now he attacks the lower abdomen, deep jagged slashes, in some cases removing parts of the womb. So again it is tempting to assume sex was behind it. But then we have the kidney removal. The mutilation of the face not the vagina. Was the motive the destruction of a woman then? If so, why be so public about it? Why not vanish into the countryside and prey on rural women? Or was it because they were prostitutes? That could point to a religious or revenge motive. Any thoughts?